Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Gregory F. Mason and Patricia A. Mason v. Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide

December 30, 2011

GREGORY F. MASON AND PATRICIA A. MASON, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
STARWOOD HOTELS AND RESORTS WORLDWIDE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Paul S. Diamond, J.

ORDER

AND NOW, this 30th day of December, 2011, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 17) is DENIED without prejudice. It is further ORDERED that this action is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Central District of California pursuant to Section 1406(a) of Title 28 of the United States Code.

The Clerk shall close this case for statistical purposes.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

Paul S. Diamond

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

GREGORY F. MASON and PATRICIA A. MASON, Plaintiffs, v. STARWOOD HOTELS AND RESORTS WORLDWIDE, INC., et al., Defendants.

Civ. No. 11-2247

Diamond, J.

December 30, 2011

MEMORANDUM

Pennsylvania residents Gregory and Patricia Mason bring this diversity action against Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide, Inc., two of its employees (Kyle Maxey and Melanie Lane), two of its purported subsidiaries (Westin Mission Hills Resort and Villas, and WVC Rancho Mirage, Inc.), and Interval International, Inc. Plaintiffs allege that they purchased vacation timeshares from Defendants, but that they did not receive all the promised benefits. (Compl., Doc. No. 1.) They also challenge Defendants' credit reporting practices.

The corporate Defendants have submitted a single Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 17), arguing that venue is not proper in this District and that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendant WVC. The individual Defendants apparently have not been served. For the reasons that follow, I will deny Defendants' Motion and transfer this action.

LEGAL STANDARDS

I.Personal Jurisdiction

Rule 12(b)(2) requires the plaintiff to establish that jurisdiction exists in the forum state. Mellon Bank (East) PSFS, Nat'l Ass'n v. Farino, 960 F.2d 1217, 1223 (3d Cir. 1992). The court must construe all jurisdictional facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, who must present "a prima facie case for the exercise of personal jurisdiction ‗by establishing with reasonable particularity, sufficient contacts between the defendant and the forum state.'" Id. (quoting Provident Nat'l Bank v. Cal. Fed. Sav. & Loan Assoc., 819 F.2d ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.